Talk Elections

...

I'll pick the paranoid sociopathic mass-murderer over the paranoid sociopathic racist mass-murderer.

Either would have me killed, so I'm not sure who'd be better. Stalin killed more people, but he had more time to do so as well.

Hitler, Id survive because Im white, and my eyes are blue. But I would be killed for my big mouth under either of them...


I am writing in Pinochet! ;)

I'd be the bomb-throwing anarchist.  Put a gun to my head and you will have to pull the trigger.

>implying stalin didn't hate jews too.

Stalin

Not nearly as much as Hitler, that's for sure!

To Stalin's credit (not that it's making him sympathetic at all), he did not proceed with mass extermination out of racial reasons.

My family suffered a lot under stalinism, but I have no doubts that under Hitler, I'd never be born. We survived communism, we would never survive Nazi victory.

For these reasons, I'd take Stalin over Hitler every day.

Hilter?

Stalin, he was less competent.

Oh, no no no, you've got the wrong map there.  This is Stalingrad!  You'll want the Ilfracombe and Barnstable section!

     I suppose Hitler. I'd be much more likely to survive under Hitler, which is about as good a criterion as any when both choices are so hilariously bad.

...

Lol.

Did Hitler kill people for disagreeing with him ala Stalin?

()

Nice obscure Monty Python reference.

So the fact that Stalin killed all people equally makes him less HP?

I guess that makes sense on some level.

As for me, meh I don't really know.

You see, Hitler took mass murder and pretty much took it to a whole new level.  Pretty much, his concentration camps were the Ford Model T's of quick efficient ways to killing people.  Also, arguably his manner of killing, by groups, would give him a pretty impressive kill count percentage per group.

Stalin, however, was legendary in his paranoia.  He had no target group, he had no designated census demographic that he specifically targeted.  If you so much as stared at a poster of him the wrong way, that was reason enough to kill you.  Voice concern about the disappeared people lately?  Too bad Jack, oh wait I mean............did you guys hear anything?  Sometimes somebody, and again that's anybody, probably could do nothing and still end up being "disappeared".

I guess I would have to know what Hitler thought of redheaded people before I can make a for sure pick between these two.

Obviously, the key to make a choice between the two (perhaps the worst choice ever) is under which regime one would have better chances to survive.

Satlin was still the better guy.

Stalin *vomits*

Does no one remember Mr Hilter of the National Bolshlist Party running in the North Minehead bye-election?  He used to hang out at the Axis Cafe with Beinrich Bimmler and that nice Mr. McGoering from Scotland? As I recall, his platform was that Poland is historically a part of Minehead.

Hilter seems a reasonable enough chap.

Stalin, I'd have a better chance of surviving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWHKaOJljQ

I'll take an incompetent psychopath over a competent one any day.  :)

Stalin was a lot of things, but he was not incompetent. Hitler on the other hand,...

A dictator who dies of natural causes in his bed is evidently more competent at his job of dictatorizing than one who commits suicide in a bunker, no?

Comrade Stalin.

Why are you doing this, J.J.?

Hm. I'd say that they're equally evil as far as that standard goes. And Stalin did, of course, go after ethnic groups and try to exterminate them (including the Jews, but his death put a stop to that before it really took off). Of course the ideological foundation for that was weaker than in Hitler's case but I don't know if that is much of an argument for anything, really.

I see two other possible standards to apply.

1. Own survival odds. A bit unclear. I look pretty blond and Swedish, but I do have my Jewish blood. Of course, I don't have THAT much of it so I might be able to get away. And the randomness of Stalin's persecutions is hard to play.

2. Effect on the world as a whole. Hitler was deposed fairly quickly, so that speaks in his favour. Then again,  that happened because the short-term effects were so bad (war, genocide, etc).

The one thing that Hitler sort of did though was to eternally discredit anti-semitism and racism. I think that might tilt me a bit towards him.

They are both too evil to vote for in my opinion. Neither of them valued basic human rights.

Stalin, I suppose.

Tough call.  Hindsight is 20/20, but assuming we are just going into a potential Hitler administration, or a potential Stalin administration, and we didn't know how many people were brutalized, tortured, and murdered by those two, it'd just be a matter of the usual parameters.  Speeches, proposals, personal style, trivia, etc.

Stalin definitely had the better mustache.  Very Ron Jeremy.  On the other hand, Hitler had the charisma, and that cute two-step.  So I guess it's a wash in the rather-drink-beer-with department.

Military background?  Hitler was a decorated veteran of the Great War, and had even been blinded in a British mustard gas attack.  That would play well.  (One of the things I like about Ron Paul is that he's a veteran, and it would be the same with Hitler.)  Stalin, on the other hand, was an armchair warrior, having played a fairly important administrative role in the Red Army during the Civil War.  He did spin it, however, to make it look like he was an important commander.  A real revolutionary who took control in the October Revolution and defeated the White Army.  So I guess it's a wash on that account.

One big political difference was that Hitler was appalled at socialism, especially at its emphasis on equality.  I think his consternation with equality would put me off.  On the other hand, Stalin was a big fan of centralization of power.  As a pseudo-federalist, I think that would have put me off.  So neither valued human rights, as has been pointed out.  Then again, if I were put into a position of having to choose between them, the order of the universe might also be such that I was not an individualist to begin with, so maybe that would not have mattered.  

Neither was very large, really, despite all the larger-than-life depictions.  I believe Stalin was 64 inches tall, while Hitler was about 68 inches tall.  So in debates Stalin would have had a little footstool to stand on.  Then again, I voted for Ron Paul in the primary even as he ran against such giants as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, so I guess that doesn't really put me off.

Stalin enjoyed American cowboy movies, and watched them frequently.  He favored the settlers over the natives, while Hitler always favored the injuns.  That might also have given Hitler higher standing in my mind.  I usually cheer for the injuns over the cowboys when I watch the westerns.

Also, Hitler was big on symbolism and the occult, and I think that might have appealed to me on some level.  I like astrology and such.  

On the other hand, Hitler was a vegetarian, and I do not trust vegetarians.  That would be a major turn-off for me.  Stalin was given to traditional Russian food and drink, which is much more respectable.  Stalin also liked wine and vodka, but he preferred sweet wine, which is sort of nasty.

Ah, such vexing questions.  At this point I'd have to say undecided.  Some days I lean toward Hitler, and other days I lean toward Stalin.  Probably I'd start watching debates and speeches at this point.  Maybe invent a drinking game.  Take a drink every time Hitler mentions Jews or something like that, and a drink every time Stalin mentions his role in the October Revolution.  I could see us all posting here about that and laughing about it.  LOL.  Juden Juden Juden!  Dude, you have to take three shots!  Woot111.  OMG, is that, like, the seventeenth time Stalin has referred to the October Revolution!  He's worse than Governor Bill ("Did I mention that I secured the release of two American Hostages?") Richardson.  Yes, we heard you the first sixteen times!

Again, we're assuming Ron Paul isn't running, because in that case my mind would be made up already and I'd just be watching the debates for fun.  Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm sure I'd be among the posters saying, "Well, either of them would be better than Obama!"